Ornstein, Why the Supreme Court Needs Term Limits

Introduction

  • Written by Norm Ornstein for The Atlantic.

  • Discusses the need for term limits in the Supreme Court.

Historical Context

  • Anniversaries noted:

    • 50th of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    • 50th of the Great Society.

    • 60th of Brown v. Board of Education.

  • Personal reflection:

    • Attended panel at Yale Law School discussing Brown, highlighting the deliberative process of justices.

    • Emphasizes the importance of consensus among justices, illustrated by a letter from Justice Frankfurter to Chief Justice Warren.

Current State of the Supreme Court

  • Increasing polarization and politicization noted.

  • Analysis suggests contemporary justices are divided along partisan lines, mirroring political divisions in society.

  • The percentage of rulings decided by narrow margins has increased under Chief Justice Roberts.

  • Fact highlighted: Some decisions are unanimous, but significant ones often have 5-4 votes.

Factors Contributing to Polarization

  • Judicial appointments have become politically charged.

  • Lifetime appointments result in long-term impacts of short-term political decisions.

  • Selection of ideologically driven judges to ensure long-term policy control.

  • Historical context:

    • The Warren Court had justices with varied political experience, leading to more unpredictable rulings.

    • Current justices lack significant experience in elected office.

    • Majority appointed from U.S. courts of appeal, lacking broader life experience.

Implications of Current Appointment Practices

  • Increased divisiveness in the confirmation process for justices.

  • Potential for the Supreme Court to become out of sync with societal changes.

  • Concerns raised about the potential erosion of the court's legitimacy.

  • As judicial power grows, the balance of power between branches of government may be threatened.

Proposal for Term Limits

  • Advocates for a model of single, 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, staggered across presidential terms.

  • Benefits discussed:

    • Provides opportunities for a broader range of candidates.

    • Reduces stakes in confirmation battles, potentially lowering polarization.

    • Aims for a Supreme Court that reflects societal changes, contributing to better governance.

Conclusion

  • Emphasizes the need for justices to have an understanding of real-world implications of their decisions.

  • Reiterates the potential benefits of implementing term limits for justices to enhance the integrity and adaptability of the Supreme Court.